I live on the big island of Hawaii, which is the eastern most island http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanoes/maunakea/ From the top of Mauna Kea at 4,170 meters above sea level using a tripod mounted Nikkor 600mm with a 1.4 TE, one can just make out the outline of Half Dome - just like in that pic - but the Golden Gate Bridge is crystal clear because it is near the coast and much closer to Mauna Kea.

Maybe I will become part of the great politico-media complex too. New York Times - here I come!

Half dome is NOT visible from the valley. You can use google earth and "plane" down to prove it.

Not a chance; Sorry.

madmax200 wrote:
Half dome is NOT visible from the valley. You can use google earth and "plane" down to prove it.

i just tried this, and it does seem impossible. But, if there where anywhere it would be possible from it would be Denair.

What Razzo said seems incredible.

Razzo Peloso wrote:
I live on the big island of Hawaii, which is the eastern most island http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanoes/maunakea/ From the top of Mauna Kea at 4,170 meters above sea level using a tripod mounted Nikkor 600mm with a 1.4 TE, one can just make out the outline of Half Dome - just like in that pic - but the Golden Gate Bridge is crystal clear because it is near the coast and much closer to Mauna Kea.

Maybe I will become part of the great politico-media complex too. New York Times - here I come!

Hilarious! Thank you for the tongue-in-cheek rebuttal.

The link WAYCOOL posted claims that Half Dome is visible on clear days from the San Joaquin valley. Is that a legitimate website? Either way, I'm in no place to say whether or not Half Dome is visible from outside the park, I've only visited once! And for the 3 days I was there, it snowed so heavily for 2 days I couldn't see ANY of the famous landmarks

Jason

(Anyone living nearby willing to test this out?)

Hilarious! Thank you for the tongue-in-cheek rebuttal.

Certainly.

It's beyond my comprehension that anybody could, even for one second, seriously entertain the idea that this image on Flicker is real. C;mon, guys, use common sense.

(Jesus, I can't believe I even have to spell this out)

The San Joaquin Valley sits at an average of 300 feet above sea level. Yosemite Valley is at the 4,000 foot elevation. The TOP of Half Dome is at about 8,000 feet. At the west end of Yosemite Valley, Half Dome is obscured by THE MOUNTAINS!! As you go down highway 140 you descend in elevation gradually until you reach 300 foot elevation. If you go to Foresta there is ONE spot in that neighborhood where you can see El Cap and Half Dome A LITTLE BIT!! But that's only because you went to an elevation that permitted it. From that spot look behind you; can you see Patterson? NO! Line of sight is obscured, and the elevation differential, AND the curvature of the earth all make it impossible for any of this to be real.

Tomorrow I will be able to show proof that the sun rises in the west; I'll have pictures to prove it!!!

Jesus, how gullible are you people? (And I'm speaking primarily to the cretins on Flickr who shallow this drivel...)

While I am skeptical too, there is a very large print of the Sierras,in the Lick Observatory lobby, Mt. Hamilton (about 4300ft elev), just East of San Jose.
You can barely see Half Dome, but it is visible.

This print is legit and I think taken by Ansel. I am looking for a link to it.

Dan

i remember once on a backcountry hike up Mt. Clark and surrounding peaks we could see lights from the Central Valley at night. Half Dome is lower though.

dswiger wrote:dswiger wrote: While I am skeptical too, there is a very large print of the Sierras,in the Lick Observatory lobby, Mt. Hamilton (about 4300ft elev), just East of San Jose.

Here is a link. Click on the small bluish photo to the right and there is Half Dome prominent in the middle.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/telescopes/lick.html

Chaz wrote:
dswiger wrote:dswiger wrote: While I am skeptical too, there is a very large print of the Sierras,in the Lick Observatory lobby, Mt. Hamilton (about 4300ft elev), just East of San Jose.

Here is a link. Click on the small bluish photo to the right and there is Half Dome prominent in the middle.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/telescopes/lick.html

This is different than taking the shot from the valley floor; The observatory is 4,300 feet elevated, so this makes more sense, especially with the magnification capabilities from the observatory. but I still doubt it.

Phil,
The shot from Mt. Hamilton is real.
I have seen the print up close and personal.
I have also seen the view from Mt. Hamilton ( I cycle up there often) on an exceptionally clear day across the Central Valley. It is small but distinct.
Having said that, I am also very skeptical of the "other" view

Dan

Phil Hawkins wrote:
This is different than taking the shot from the valley floor; The observatory is 4,300 feet elevated, so this makes more sense, especially with the magnification capabilities from the observatory. but I still doubt it.

I realize this is quite different from the other claims - I was just following up on Dan's hunt for the photo in question.

However, did you read my earlier post today where I laid out several reasons that I think might make the valley floor shot feasible?

After work today, I'm going to try and contact the photographer from the Patterson Irrigator and see what he has to tell me about his original photo.

madmax200 wrote:
Half dome is NOT visible from the valley. You can use google earth and "plane" down to prove it.
You might want to try adjusting your render settings then, because I did just that after reading the story and sure enough, Half Dome is clearly visible from the town mentioned in the story. Its hard to get a good idea of exactly how visible it is because GE doesn't render well at long distances due to memory constraints, but of you zoom to Half Dome and allow the terrain to load, then zoom to Turlock or Denair and squeeze the ground, its pretty obvious where it lies.

phil hawkins wrote:
It's beyond my comprehension that anybody could, even for one second, seriously entertain the idea that this image on Flicker is real. C;mon, guys, use common sense.

(Jesus, I can't believe I even have to spell this out)

The San Joaquin Valley sits at an average of 300 feet above sea level. Yosemite Valley is at the 4,000 foot elevation. The TOP of Half Dome is at about 8,000 feet. At the west end of Yosemite Valley, Half Dome is obscured by THE MOUNTAINS!! As you go down highway 140 you descend in elevation gradually until you reach 300 foot elevation. If you go to Foresta there is ONE spot in that neighborhood where you can see El Cap and Half Dome A LITTLE BIT!! But that's only because you went to an elevation that permitted it. From that spot look behind you; can you see Patterson? NO! Line of sight is obscured, and the elevation differential, AND the curvature of the earth all make it impossible for any of this to be real.

Tomorrow I will be able to show proof that the sun rises in the west; I'll have pictures to prove it!!!

Jesus, how gullible are you people? (And I'm speaking primarily to the cretins on Flickr who shallow this drivel...)

Phil, you just disproved your argument with the very same argument. The fact that Half Dome is twice as tall as the mountains between the valley and itself is exactly the reason why it should be visible from the valley (on a clear day, of course). Crack open Google Earth if you have it installed and use the Ruler tool to draw a straight line from the summit of Half Dome to Highway 99 in Turlock. Measuring from the W. Main St. exit on 99, its 75.19 miles (397,003 feet) to the summit of Half Dome as the crow flies.

The summit of Half Dome is at 8836 feet. So if you remember your Trig from school, we'd look up at an angle of 1.28 degrees from Turlock. The next highest point that line of sight would cross is the shoulder of Sentinel Dome somewhere around the Four Mile Trail, at an elevation of about 6350 feet and a distance from Turlock of 382,060 feet, which gives us a viewing angle of .95 degrees, but being only 3 miles from Half Dome, compression will impact that particular spot severely, so we'd need to find the highest percieved spot between the valley and HD.

Lets start with the foothills just east of Lake McLure. The line of sight crosses a high point near Williams Peak of right around 2900 feet about 38.3 miles from Turlock. That gives us an angle of 0.82 degrees, well below the angle needed to view Half Dome, so no obstruction there. Next, lets examine the Turnbull Peak area which sits at about 4900 feet and is more or less directly in line. Its about 56.9 miles from Turlock, which gives us an angle of 0.93 degrees. Still well below the obstruction line.

Looking at the picture again, Sentinel Dome and El Cap are obvious and neither Turtleback Dome or the north side of Sentinel Dome where the Four Mile Trail climbs out of the valley are visible, so I think we can surmise that Turnbull Peak is the tallest obstructor in the photo on Flickr and then the area around Williams Peak would be in front of that. Do the math yourself, Half Dome should be plainly visible from the valley. Just because you've never seen it yourself doesn't make it untrue.

It's been mentioned in several sources (previous and separate to this fuss) and I also found discussions of hiking Half Dome with comments on seeing the valley.

http://phreatic.blogspot.com/2008/11/little-help-for-my-friends.html

I'm sure we'll get a new image in a couple of days or so. Although I have a feeling the "Half Dome from Turlock" is many years away from taking over for Horsetail Fall's "firefall," or even Half Dome from Sentinel Bridge, Tunnel View, etc., when it comes to popularity of photographic objectives.

Chaz wrote:
...you don't have to?

Well... because NO ONE who climbs half dome takes a long lens so that they can shoot photos of ... Patterson, CA. ;-)

Dan

Well darn it maybe somebody(not me ) should.

I e-mailed photographer Elias Funez at the 'Patterson Irrigator' and explained that his photo ignited a spirited discussion.

Here is his reply with a link to his blog where he explains the photo in particular:

"Wow, I had no idea that my photo would stir up all this controversy. I sure am glad that Tony Immoos came down from Tahoe to photograph Half Dome, it really solidifies my claims that Half Dome IS visible with the naked eye from certain areas of the Central Valley and the Diablo Range, and also that I'm not the only one to have documented it as well. If you could please post this along with a link to my blog site where I explain more in depth my perspective, It would be appreciated, thanks again."

www.eliasphoto.blogspot.com

CASE CLOSED.

Hi Phil, et al :-)

I'm the new kid on the block and just wanted to take the time to let you know my take on this subject.

I started researching it back in September 2008 after reading an article about Kasteel Noz, which is located east of Denair. In the article it stated that Half Dome could been seen from the castle on a clear day. I've since found about twenty-some photographs done by five different people, with the latest one being done yesterday at 1:43 PM by Mike Matenkosky (http://thebackcountry.org) from Atwater. He made the trip to Keyes and Hall Roads just so he could get a photo of it for the rest of us who can't.

It would be too coincidental for all of these people to be able to do the PhotoShop thing to that extent. I know if I lived as close to this scene as you do, I'd be getting in the car and making that trip myself just to see what I could see.

Now, I'm off to find out others' opinions on what makes great photographic equipment. I hope you have a great day :-)